BALBIR SINGH Vs. SAHJOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has directed against the order dated 7.4.1997 passed by Additional Civil Judge (SD) Palwal. By this order, the learned trial court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of para 3 of the written statement. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent.

(2.) MR . Kamboj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in original para 3 of the written statement, order of completion of the building was inadvertently mentioned as 1984 instead of 1981 and it was purely a typographical mistake which the defendant seeks to correct by way of amendment. He further submits that in original para-3 of the written statement itself, it was mentioned that it is wrong that the period of ten years has not expired since its completion of construction. He, therefore, contends that the amendment sought is bona fide.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel of the parties and having perused the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not legally sustainable and has to be set aside. In original para-3 of the written statement, it has been clearly stated that "it is also wrong that period of 10 years has not expired since its completion of construction." From this it is clear that intention of the defendant in the written statement was that the period of ten years has already expired from the completion of the construction and as a matter of fact even in the preliminary objection it has been stated that the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 are applicable to the present matter. From this the intention of the defendant is clear and the year 1984 appears to have been inadvertent mentioned instead of 1981.